RADIO DEBATE
tomnln
I notice that McAdams FORGOT to put our radio debate on his website.
You can hear it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
David Von Pein
www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassination+mcadams
COMMENTS ABOUT THE TOM ROSSLEY/JOHN McADAMS RADIO DEBATE ON WHPR-RADIO
(HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN) ON APRIL 5, 2009.......
RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:
The biggest oversight on Prof. McAdams' part, IMO, was when the "back
and to the left" topic cropped up a couple of times during the
debate...with Prof. McAdams not ONCE mentioning the initial FORWARD
movement of President Kennedy's head on the Zapruder Film at the
critical moment of impact when Oswald's bullet was crashing into the
back of JFK's head.
Now, it's possible that John did mention the forward head movement in
the UNCUT debate (which, as I understand it from Tom Rossley, was 3
hours and 20 minutes in total length, which was then edited down by
Anton Batey to 1 hour and 45 minutes for the 11-part YouTube version
linked above).
So, I suppose perhaps a mention of the initial forward movement of
JFK's head could have been mentioned by John and then subsequently cut
out of Anton's trimmed-down version.
But I think that John McAdams would agree that any discussion about
the movements of JFK's head during the key head-shot frames of the
Zapruder Film should certainly include some remarks about the very
important forward movement of the President's head at the critical
IMPACT point.
Tom Rossley, who is (as everyone with a brain here knows full well) a
conspiracy-loving kook of the very first order (hey, why mince words,
right? the guy's nuts), came up with a brand-new crackpot idea
regarding Governor John Connally's wounds that I don't think I have
ever heard any other conspiracy theorist dish up in the past -- and
that's when Tom stated during the WHPR radio debate that Governor
Connally had NOT been shot in the back by a bullet at all....but,
instead, had been shot in the CHEST from the FRONT by a bullet. And
this bullet evidently exited the UPPER BACK of John B. Connally.
Now that's a hot (new) one on me!
Maybe Tom has proposed that nutsville theory here at these Internet
forums in the past, but I sure don't recall reading it.
Tom bases his "Connally Was Shot In The Chest" nuttiness on the
initial news reports (and some statements by Connally's doctor that
Rossley has totally misinterpreted, as per the kook's norm) that said
that Connally had, indeed, been shot "in the chest".
But even a first-grader should be able to figure this one out -- it's
obvious that the initial "shot in the chest" reports (which were
stated on national TV, no doubt about that) were erroneous and were,
in large part being based on the area of Connally's body where some
witnesses observed the most blood pouring out of the Governor--which
was, of course, in his chest.
This "in the chest" nonsense is very similar in nature to the
erroneous early reports (like Bill Newman's) which stated that JFK had
been shot "in the temple".
Since the temple area at the RIGHT-FRONT of Kennedy's head (i.e., the
EXIT point for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet) was the place where
witnesses, naturally, saw all of the blood on the President, they
incorrectly asserted that Kennedy had been shot IN the "temple" area.
But, quite obvious, Newman nor anyone else in Dealey Plaza could have
possibly seen the exact ENTRY HOLE on Kennedy's head to make a
conclusive determination about where precisely the point of entry was
located on JFK's head.
Back to Connally's "chest" for a moment longer -- It appears then, per
Mr. Rossley, that apparently the gunman who fired that bullet into
Connally's chest from the front must have been lying on the
floorboards of the limousine (seeing as how such a bullet would have
been moving UPWARD through Governor Connally's body, per Rossley's
impossible theory).
Maybe Brian David Andersen (author of the JFK fantasy book "My God,
I'm Hit!") was right after all. Maybe there WAS a secret compartment
somewhere in the President's SS-100-X limousine where a midget shooter
could hide himself and from where he could have popped up and fired
some bullets at JBC and JFK on November 22nd.
And Rossley thinks that Connally's chest wound was SMALLER than JBC's
back wound. More fantasy from Conspiracist Tom, I see.
Of course, as we all know, Dr. Shaw (one of Connally's surgeons at
Parkland Hospital) appeared on live television within hours of the
shooting on 11/22/63 and told the world that Connally had very likely
been struck by only "one" bullet, with that bullet positively coming
from behind Governor Connally, with the back wound being undeniably a
wound of ENTRY, not exit.
For Rossley to go on the radio and actually make the absurd claim that
John Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY is beyond ridiculous
(given the mountains of evidence indicating just exactly the opposite)
-- it's insane.
So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the front -- a
sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley thinks they
were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has Connally
being hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has to
account for FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the SBT's
one single bullet). LOL.
Like always, a conspiracy kook has everything 100% backwards.
Another "new one" that I had never once heard before was when Tom
Rossley said that there's evidence of some kind to indicate that Dan
Rather was in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on Thursday, November 21st
(the night before the assassination), and that Rather saw Lee Oswald
together with Ruby that night.
Well, just as I thought, Mr. Rossley has misrepresented the crux and
meat of this misunderstanding regarding Dan Rather. It took me just a
couple of minutes to clear up this matter in my own mind, via taking a
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #2983 (linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0259a.htm
As we can easily see in CE2983, it was a simple mix-up regarding WHO
it was who claimed to have seen Oswald in the Carousel Club. That
Commission Exhibit clears it up nicely, with the end result being that
Dan Rather never claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club at
all. Instead, it was Bill DeMar (an entertainer who occasionally
worked for Ruby at the Carousel) who said he might very well have seen
Oswald in the audience one night at some time prior to the
assassination.
Also -- CE2983 mentions nothing about the exact DATE when DeMar
supposedly saw Oswald there, which means Rossley is stretching the
truth once again when Tom said that Rather supposedly saw LHO at
Ruby's club on 11/21/63.
In addition, CE2983 says absolutely nothing about DeMar (or Rather)
having seen Oswald TOGETHER WITH RUBY at any time prior to November
22nd. That exhibit only mentions a potential Oswald sighting, but
nothing about Oswald and Ruby being seen TOGETHER at any point in
time.
And in Dan Rather's televised interview with Bill DeMar on November
24, 1963 (which is currently available to watch in its entirety on my
YouTube channel), DeMar doesn't mention a thing about Oswald being
WITH RUBY when DeMar supposedly saw LHO in the Carousel. In fact,
DeMar says exactly the opposite when asked about it by Dan Rather,
indicating that Oswald was positively NOT with Ruby in the club.
DeMar merely said that he thought Oswald was "in the audience" during
one of DeMar's performances at the Carousel at some point prior to
November 22nd.
So, once again, Rossley is stretching the facts to the breaking point
to meet his pro-conspiracy requirements. As always.
Another great "Rossley Moment Of Hilarity" during the radio debate was
when Tom R. declared that the negative paraffin test result on Lee
Harvey Oswald's cheek meant (conclusively!) that Oswald positively did
not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.
Rossley, naturally, totally discounts two critical facts regarding
paraffin tests when he declares Oswald to be completely innocent of
assassinating JFK based on just the negative paraffin result to LHO's
cheek, to wit:
Tom, even though he says otherwise, disregards the fact that paraffin
tests are wholly unreliable (as testified to by multiple law-
enforcement officials after the assassination).
As Prof. McAdams explained to Rossley during the radio debate, the
main reason that police departments even use the paraffin test at all
is mainly for "intimidation" purposes (at least in circa 1963 at any
rate). The police hope they can trick a suspect (although I think Mr.
McAdams used the wrong word in the debate when he said "witness"
instead of "suspect") into a confession through the use of such a test
(and, similarly, with the use of the lie detector test as well).
Plus, as Mr. Rossley should know full well, the FBI did tests with
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination, with an FBI
agent being given a paraffin test very shortly after firing multiple
shots from CE139 (Oswald's very own rifle), with that test resulting
in a "negative" reading for nitrates on BOTH the agent's hands and
CHEEK.
Therefore, via such a test conducted by the FBI, we KNOW that a FALSE
NEGATIVE is possible. And yet Mr. Rossley has the gall to declare that
Oswald never fired a rifle on 11/22/63 based solely on the results of
the paraffin test.
And here's another lulu from the lips of veteran assassination
researcher (and mega-kook galore) Thomas Rossley --- Tom suggested to
the radio audience that Oswald couldn't possibly have used his Italian
miltary Carcano rifle to murder John F. Kennedy in November of 1963
because he had no bullets available to put into his Carcano in
November of 1963 (alluding to the silly factoid about how the
manufacturing of MC ammunition had been discontinued years prior to
1963)!
How about that, folks?
Of course, to a reasonable person looking into JFK's assassination, it
becomes rather obvious that since Oswald purchased his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle from a mail-order firm in Chicago, Illinois, in March of
1963 (Klein's Sporting Goods Co.)....it stands to reason that Klein's
Sporting Goods Company was probably not selling rifles to customers if
NO AMMUNITION FOR THOSE RIFLES WAS READILY AVAILABLE!
I guess Rossley wants to believe that Klein's was advertising (and
selling) WW2 Army surplus Carcano rifles to the public -- but nobody
could ever hope to use these rifles because no ammo could be purchased
to put into these guns!
But (again) to a reasonable person, a different truth emerges -- i.e.,
Klein's was selling people Mannlicher-Carcanos via mail-order, so it's
quite obvious that bullets for those Carcanos was certainly available
to purchase.
In fact, in the very same magazine ad that Oswald used to purchase his
rifle, Klein's also offered the ammunition for that rifle (108 rounds
for $7.50):
The above February 1963 magazine ad is the one that Oswald used to
order his rifle. The advertisement below is the similar November 1963
Klein's ad, which also features the "6.5 Italian Carbine", and the one
linked below shows (in easier-to-read blow-up form) the area of the ad
which offers "6.5MM ITALIAN MILITARY AMMO; 108 ROUNDS; 6-SHOT CLIP
FREE; $7.50" (and the exact same "ammo" purchasing option can also be
seen at the bottom of the February '63 ad that Oswald used):
Oswald decided not to spend the extra $7.50 for the bullets when he
ordered his rifle and scope from Klein's in March of '63, but it's
fairly obvious that Carcano bullets WERE being made available to
customers by Klein's in 1963.
Oswald must have purchased his bullets someplace other than Klein's;
but if Klein's had the ammo available in 1963, it stands to reason
that other places had them for sale as well.
Rossley no doubt disagrees. But such is the way with conspiracy-happy
theorists. They'll grasp for any crazy straw they can latch onto...all
the while throwing ordinary common sense out the window in the
process.
Debate Winner -- Professor John McAdams (naturally).
David Von Pein
April 9, 2009
========================================================
>>> "It's obvious that Rossley, like most CTers, has nothing but tired old worn-out "factoids"..." <<<
Oh, I don't know about that -- Rossley has placed on the table some
"new" stuff (hilarious, but somewhat "new")....such as the stuff I
talk about at the link below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ae81c1e5ba212311
E.G.: Rossley (in true-blue form of getting everything backwards)
thinks that Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY, and he thinks
(as all retarded kooks do) that JFK's throat wound was a wound of
ENTRY as well.
And Tom thinks that both of those wounds of "entry" resulted in the
bullets exiting out the two victims' upper backs.
So, we're dealing with a case of a mega-kook (that's Rossley) taking a
look at the evidence and then turning the known facts completely
around to satisfy the kook's pro-conspiracy needs, such as when
Rossley takes BOTH of the verified EXIT wounds on JFK's and Connally's
bodies and magically turns EACH of them into (voila!) ENTRY wounds.
And then Rossley conveniently (and magically) takes BOTH victims'
verified ENTRY wounds in their upper backs and turns each of these
wounds into (voila!) EXIT wounds.
That's called "rewriting history" to fit a kook's requirements. And
retards like Thomas Rossley perform that task better than anyone else
on the planet.
And the crap that Rossley talked about during the radio debate
regarding Dan Rather supposedly having seen Oswald at the Carousel
Club on November 21st is a real howl too.
I failed to make the following observation in my above-linked critique
of the debate (which was a debate that Mr. McAdams won with
ease...seeing as how John has all the evidence to support his position
and Rossley has none to support his)....
How could Dan Rather (or anyone!) have POSSIBLY seen Lee Oswald at
Jack Ruby's Carousel nightclub on Thursday night, November 21st, 1963,
when we know exactly where Oswald was located during that whole night?
Oswald was at the Paine house in Irving that night.
Does Rossley think that Oswald borrowed Ruth Paine's station wagon and
took a trip down to Ruby's club on Thursday night without anyone at
the Paine house noticing?
BTW, as a side note -- I'm wondering when and where Thomas Rossley met
Jim Garrison?
David Von Pein
April 9, 2009
========================================================
>>> "David doesn't know that JBC's own doctor made that ["in the chest"] statement." <<<
As I said before, you (Rossley) can't even use your common sense (if
you've got any left after wading through conspiracy myth after
conspiracy myth for over 40 years now) to figure out the really,
really easy-to-figure-out stuff regarding the evidence surrounding the
events of November 22nd, 1963.
If you ever came up against something really difficult, you'd probably
implode.
>>> "David doesn't know that that statement is in the 26 volumes." <<<
So what?
What did Robert Shaw say about JBC's wounds on live TV on 11/22/63?
Did Shaw say that Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY?
Answer: No, of course not. Nor did Shaw EVER claim in his WC testimony
that Connally's chest wound was a wound of entry.
Rossley, as always, is making shit up.
Whatever "in the chest" comment you're talking about that may be in
"the 26 volumes" is not relevant to proving where the ENTRY vs. EXIT
wounds were located on Governor Connally's body. Because it couldn't
be more obvious where the specific entry and exit holes in JBC were
located by just glancing briefly at Dr. Shaw's WC testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - When did you first have an opportunity then to examine
Governor Connally's wound on the posterior aspect of his chest?
Dr. SHAW - After the Governor had been anesthetized. As soon as he was
asleep so we could manipulate him--before that time it was necessary
for an endotracheal tube to be in place so his respirations could be
controlled before we felt we could roll him over and accurately
examine the wound entrance. We knew this was the wound exit.
Mr. SPECTER - This [indicating an area below the right nipple on the
body]?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - How did you know it was a wound exit.
Dr. SHAW - By the fact of its size, the ragged edges of the wound.
This wound was covered by a dressing which could not be removed until
the Governor was anesthetized.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating this wound, the wound on the Governor's
chest?
Dr. SHAW - Yes; the front part.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe in as much detail as you can the wound
on the posterior side of the Governor's chest?
Dr. SHAW - This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a
half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just
medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could
tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the
shoulder blade.
Mr. SPECTER - What were the characteristics, if any, which indicated
to you that it was a wound of entrance then?
Dr. SHAW - Its small size, and the rather clean cut edges of the wound
as compared to the usual more ragged wound of exit.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm
David Von Pein
April 10, 2009
========================================================
>>> "The [Warren] Commission specifically asked the FBI to get the videotape [re. Dan Rather's supposed statement about seeing Oswald at the Carousel Club, via KRLD-Radio in Dallas]." <<<
So what?
CE2983 provides ample proof that Dan Rather NEVER, EVER was in the
Carousel Club at any time.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0259a.htm
You obviously think Dan Rather is a liar, right Tom?
(Silly question, of course Tom thinks Rather is a liar.)
But let's look at this from a "common-sense" perspective, okay? (Are
you up for that, Tom?)
Let's say (for the sake of argument) that Dan Rather of CBS News
really HAD been in the Carousel Club prior to 11/22/63 and he really
DID see Lee Oswald in that nightclub.
Now, fast forward to 11/24/63 --- Dan Rather, who is heavily involved
in the Dallas coverage for CBS-TV that November weekend in 1963, would
have had a golden opportunity to reveal to the WORLD (via live
television) that he, HIMSELF, had actually SEEN Lee Harvey Oswald a
few days before JFK's assassination in the VERY SAME CLUB OWNED BY
OSWALD'S MURDERER!
But does Dan Rather reveal this bombshell on nationwide TV on 11/24/63
(or at anytime thereafter)?
No. Instead, Dan Rather interviews nightclub comedian Bill DeMar on
CBS-TV on the afternoon or early evening of Sunday, November 24th,
1963, and it's DeMar who tells the world that it was he (DeMar) who
had supposedly seen Oswald in the Carousel about "8 or 9 days" prior
to 11/24/63. (DeMar also said "last week" when he was asked by Rather
when exactly DeMar had seen Oswald at the club.)
Also -- Via that Rather/DeMar interview on 11/24/63 (video linked
below), Dan Rather obviously has NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what kind of club
the Carousel is....hence, Rather asks DeMar questions like, "What kind
of club is it?" and "Is it a rough place?".
Now, if Dan Rather HIMSELF had been inside the Carousel Club at some
point in time shortly prior to Kennedy's assassination, why would he
need to even ASK such questions of somebody else? He would have known
what kind of club it was HIMSELF.
Of course, I'm sure that Tom Rossley (and other CT-Kooks equally as
unhinged as Tom) want to believe that Mr. Rather was merely keeping
quiet about being at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club prior to the
assassination (and seeing Oswald there). Right, Tom?
Dan Rather really KNEW what kind of club the Carousel was, right? And
he really had seen Lee Oswald there on 11/21/63 (even though we know
that Oswald couldn't even have been there that night, because he drove
out to Irving with Buell Frazier to spend that night with Marina and
his kids [and to get his rifle, of course]). Right, Tom?
But Rather was, in a way, lying his ass off by KEEPING QUIET about
these things on November 24, 1963, when he interviewed Bill DeMar.
Right, Tom?
Dan Rather, with a golden opportunity (per Kook Rossley) to toot his
own horn (so to speak), and to gain even more attention than he
already had gained as of 11/24/63, decides to CLAM UP entirely about
having physically SEEN Lee Harvey Oswald at Jack Ruby's nightclub
prior to the assassination of the President.
Right, Tom-Kook?
(Tell me I'm right about those things, Tom. I always enjoy watching a
kook hang himself with his own stupid beliefs.)
DAN RATHER INTERVIEWS BILL DeMAR (11/24/63):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqOUQWpIzpc&fmt=18
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FFD6CCCB72B1CB73
David Von Pein
April 11, 2009
========================================================
Tom Rossley's insane theory about Governor Connally's chest wound
being one of ENTRY instead of exit is even more ludicrous after
reading that Shires testimony that Rossley's cites above -- because
it's not really even SHIRES that's making the statement (i.e., Shires
is speaking for CONNALLY there).
And, as we all know, John Connally himself never once even HINTED at
the idea that he was shot from the FRONT.
Also:
Later in Dr. Shires' testimony, he makes the following comments that
Rossley conveniently ignores, with Shires talking about how JBC's
doctors pretty much ALL were of the opinion that Connally had been
shot by just ONE BULLET (6 H 109-110):
DR. GEORGE T. SHIRES -- "We all thought, me included, that this was
probably one missile, one bullet."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "When you say 'we all thought', whom do you mean by
that?"
DR. SHIRES -- "Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory---as we were reconstructing the
events in the operating room in an attempt to plot out trajectory as
best we could, this appeared to be our opinion. .... Everyone was
under the impression this was one missile---through and through the
chest, through and through the arm and the thigh."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060b.htm
David Von Pein
April 13, 2009
========================================================
There must be a full moon. The conspiracy-loving retards are out in
force.
I don't suppose the CT-Kooks have even the slightest desire to bash
the total nonsense that was being spouted by "one of their own"--
Thomas Rossley--during the 4/5/09 WHPR radio debate...right?
Such nonsense as the following (and this is only the tip of the
iceberg when it comes to the hilarious and retarded stuff that Rossley
regurgitated endlessly for 3-and-a-half hours on WHPR-Radio on
4/5/09):
1.) When Rossley said that he actually thinks John Connally's chest
wound was a wound of ENTRY instead of exit.
2.) When Rossley said that Jack Ruby was "forced" to kill Lee Oswald
because of something that was supposedly said by Dan Rather to KRLD on
11/23/63.
3.) When Rossley stated his belief that it was Oswald in the doorway
of the TSBD. (Even the most rabid of CT retards don't believe that one
anymore.)
4.) When Rossley totally contradicted himself when he propped up SS
agent Glen Bennett's "four inches down from the right shoulder"
statement....i.e., indicating that JFK was actually shot from the REAR
in the upper back, even though Rossley had said earlier in the debate
that Kennedy's back wound was a wound of EXIT.
5.) During the debate, Rossley magically turned every verified EXIT
wound into an ENTRY wound, and he magically turned every verified
ENTRY wound into an EXIT wound for the sake of rewriting history THE
ROSSLEY WAY.
And Rossley even performed this "magic" with Governor Connally's
wounds too....becoming the first mega-kook in HISTORY (that I'm aware
of) who has ever even HINTED at the idea that John B. Connally was
shot in the chest from the FRONT.
Rossley deserves praise for being inventive and really retarded in his
beliefs about the case, I will say that.
But all of those things will just roll off the backs of the conspiracy
theorists at the various forums. They already have, in fact, with not
one single CTer daring to disagree with the above sample batch of
insane nuttiness that was spewed forth by Tom Rossley on the radio on
Sunday, April 5, 2009.
Well, like they say...birds of a feather. I guess as long as the
conspiracy-happy kooks can pretend that Saint Oswald didn't fire a
shot, those retarded members of the "Anybody But Oswald" club are
satisfied (even if "one of their own" named Rossley says really stupid
sh*t on the Internet airwaves, like he did on April 5, 2009).
For the actual evidence (and common sense), you can always go here. of
course:
David Von Pein
April 13, 2009
========================================================
>>> "You have to realize, however, that more than 75% of the listening audience were already predisposed towards a conspiracy." <<<
Yes, that's certainly true. But, much to the chagrin of Mr. Rossley,
that "more than 75%" is not really in his "Anybody But Oswald" corner
at all. Not even close, in fact (at least when based on the
assassination poll I'm going to be talking about next).
A "JFK Assassination" poll conducted by ABC News in November 2003
shows us that 83% of the 1,031 people participating in that particular
poll said they thought that Rossley's favorite innocent patsy (i.e., a
man named Oswald) was, indeed, firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63, with
only 7% of those same 1,031 individuals saying they thought Oswald was
not a gunman.
Rossley must hate polls like the one below, because stuff like this
(with a specific question being asked about "GUNMAN"/"GUNMEN") only
goes to show that the type of crazy Anybody-But-LHO mentality that is
possessed by so many CTers within the cyber walls of Internet forums
is certainly not even close to being the mentality of Americans in
general (at least when based on the 2003 ABC News poll below, at any
rate):
POLLING QUESTION:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?"
POLLING RESULTS:
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
David Von Pein
April 15, 2009
========================================================
David Von Pein
TOM "MEGA-KOOK" ROSSLEY SAID:
>>> "I notice that McAdams FORGOT to put our radio debate on his website." <<<
JOHN McADAMS THEN SAID:
>>> "I don't put vanity stuff on my web site. And frankly, it wasn't that good a debate -- except for people who like mud wrestling and roller derby. .John" <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/0cd7778694f1a578
tomnln
(sorry bout the typo)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d90d57f-0668-4f97...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
www.youtube.com/profile?user=AntonBatey&view=videos&query=jfk+assassination+mcadams
RANDOM OBSERVATIONS:
***************************************************
It seems that ALL evidence/testimony are a "new one on you"
******************************************************
Maybe Tom has proposed that nutsville theory here at these Internet
forums in the past, but I sure don't recall reading it.
Tom bases his "Connally Was Shot In The Chest" nuttiness on the
initial news reports (and some statements by Connally's doctor that
Rossley has totally misinterpreted, as per the kook's norm) that said
that Connally had, indeed, been shot "in the chest".
But even a first-grader should be able to figure this one out -- it's
obvious that the initial "shot in the chest" reports (which were
stated on national TV, no doubt about that) were erroneous and were,
in large part being based on the area of Connally's body where some
witnesses observed the most blood pouring out of the Governor--which
was, of course, in his chest.
******************************************************************************
Please I D exactly which witnesses you're answering for?
*****************************************************************************
This "in the chest" nonsense is very similar in nature to the
erroneous early reports (like Bill Newman's) which stated that JFK had
been shot "in the temple"
**********************************************************************************
Along with 4 other witnesses who were THERE;
Douglas Kiker
Seth Kantor
Fr. Oscar Huber
Hurchel Jacks
********************************************************************************
Since the temple area at the RIGHT-FRONT of Kennedy's head (i.e., the
EXIT point for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet) was the place where
witnesses, naturally, saw all of the blood on the President, they
incorrectly asserted that Kennedy had been shot IN the "temple" area.
********************************************************************************
AGAIN, David speaks for "Unnamed" witnesses who were THERE.
******************************************************************************
But, quite obvious, Newman nor anyone else in Dealey Plaza could have
possibly seen the exact ENTRY HOLE on Kennedy's head to make a
conclusive determination about where precisely the point of entry was
located on JFK's head.
***********************************************************************************
Sure David.....Screw those witnesses who were THERE.
*********************************************************************************
Back to Connally's "chest" for a moment longer -- It appears then, per
Mr. Rossley, that apparently the gunman who fired that bullet into
Connally's chest from the front must have been lying on the
floorboards of the limousine (seeing as how such a bullet would have
been moving UPWARD through Governor Connally's body, per Rossley's
impossible theory).
*********************************************************************************
Your LN/SBT is "Theory" David;
I quote witnesses who were THERE.
**************************************************************************
Maybe Brian David Andersen (author of the JFK fantasy book "My God,
I'm Hit!") was right after all. Maybe there WAS a secret compartment
somewhere in the President's SS-100-X limousine where a midget shooter
could hide himself and from where he could have popped up and fired
some bullets at JBC and JFK on November 22nd.
And Rossley thinks that Connally's chest wound was SMALLER than JBC's
back wound. More fantasy from Conspiracist Tom, I see.
****************************************************************************************
JBC's chest wound was small/round like an entrance wound.
JBC's back wound was elliptical like an exit wound.
JBC's Dr/ALL reports said "Shot in chest"
********************************************************************************
Of course, as we all know, Dr. Shaw (one of Connally's surgeons at
Parkland Hospital) appeared on live television within hours of the
shooting on 11/22/63 and told the world that Connally had very likely
been struck by only "one" bullet, with that bullet positively coming
from behind Governor Connally, with the back wound being undeniably a
wound of ENTRY, not exit.
*************************************************************************************
JBC's Dr said "2 bullets, maybe 3 bullets"
***************************************************************************************
For Rossley to go on the radio and actually make the absurd claim that
John Connally's chest wound was a wound of ENTRY is beyond ridiculous
(given the mountains of evidence indicating just exactly the opposite)
-- it's insane.
****************************************************************************************
David RUNS from Multiple Lies/destruction of evidence.
*****************************************************************************************
So, Rossley's got Kennedy AND Connally being shot from the front -- a
sort of "SBT in reverse", it would seem (although Rossley thinks they
were hit by separate FRONTAL bullets; and Rossley also has Connally
being hit by TWO bullets, which means his anti-SBT theory has to
account for FOUR disappearing bullets, in order to replace the SBT's
one single bullet). LOL.
Like always, a conspiracy kook has everything 100% backwards.
*************************************************************************************
David's explanation of the Assassination is as "Backwards" as his "sex life"
(BACKWARDS)
***********************************************************************************************
Another "new one" that I had never once heard before was when Tom
Rossley said that there's evidence of some kind to indicate that Dan
Rather was in Jack Ruby's Carousel Club on Thursday, November 21st
(the night before the assassination), and that Rather saw Lee Oswald
together with Ruby that night.
Well, just as I thought, Mr. Rossley has misrepresented the crux and
meat of this misunderstanding regarding Dan Rather. It took me just a
couple of minutes to clear up this matter in my own mind, via taking a
look at Warren Commission Exhibit #2983 (linked below):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0259a.htm
****************************************************************************************
David; The Warren Commission asked the FBI for the FILM of Rather's
statement.
Did you see the FILM?????
****************************************************************************************
As we can easily see in CE2983, it was a simple mix-up regarding WHO
it was who claimed to have seen Oswald in the Carousel Club. That
Commission Exhibit clears it up nicely, with the end result being that
Dan Rather never claimed to have seen Oswald at the Carousel Club at
all. Instead, it was Bill DeMar (an entertainer who occasionally
worked for Ruby at the Carousel) who said he might very well have seen
Oswald in the audience one night at some time prior to the
assassination.
Also -- CE2983 mentions nothing about the exact DATE when DeMar
supposedly saw Oswald there, which means Rossley is stretching the
truth once again when Tom said that Rather supposedly saw LHO at
Ruby's club on 11/21/63.
*********************************************************************************************
"Tape 43b November 24, 1963"
Did they produce the tape David???
*********************************************************************************************
In addition, CE2983 says absolutely nothing about DeMar (or Rather)
having seen Oswald TOGETHER WITH RUBY at any time prior to November
22nd. That exhibit only mentions a potential Oswald sighting, but
nothing about Oswald and Ruby being seen TOGETHER at any point in
time.
And in Dan Rather's televised interview with Bill DeMar on November
24, 1963 (which is currently available to watch in its entirety on my
YouTube channel), DeMar doesn't mention a thing about Oswald being
WITH RUBY when DeMar supposedly saw LHO in the Carousel. In fact,
DeMar says exactly the opposite when asked about it by Dan Rather,
indicating that Oswald was positively NOT with Ruby in the club.
DeMar merely said that he thought Oswald was "in the audience" during
one of DeMar's performances at the Carousel at some point prior to
November 22nd.
So, once again, Rossley is stretching the facts to the breaking point
to meet his pro-conspiracy requirements. As always.
*******************************************************************************************
The ACTUAL Tape mentioned would clear it up Nicely ! ! !
****************************************************************************************
Another great "Rossley Moment Of Hilarity" during the radio debate was
when Tom R. declared that the negative paraffin test result on Lee
Harvey Oswald's cheek meant (conclusively!) that Oswald positively did
not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.
Rossley, naturally, totally discounts two critical facts regarding
paraffin tests when he declares Oswald to be completely innocent of
assassinating JFK based on just the negative paraffin result to LHO's
cheek, to wit:
Tom, even though he says otherwise, disregards the fact that paraffin
tests are wholly unreliable (as testified to by multiple law-
enforcement officials after the assassination).
As Prof. McAdams explained to Rossley during the radio debate, the
main reason that police departments even use the paraffin test at all
is mainly for "intimidation" purposes (at least in circa 1963 at any
rate). The police hope they can trick a suspect (although I think Mr.
McAdams used the wrong word in the debate when he said "witness"
instead of "suspect") into a confession through the use of such a test
(and, similarly, with the use of the lie detector test as well).
Plus, as Mr. Rossley should know full well, the FBI did tests with
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination, with an FBI
agent being given a paraffin test very shortly after firing multiple
shots from CE139 (Oswald's very own rifle), with that test resulting
in a "negative" reading for nitrates on BOTH the agent's hands and
CHEEK.
*********************************************************************************
ANOTHER LIE !
Pariffin tests with CE-139 were POSITIVE.
********************************************************************************
Therefore, via such a test conducted by the FBI, we KNOW that a FALSE
NEGATIVE is possible. And yet Mr. Rossley has the gall to declare that
Oswald never fired a rifle on 11/22/63 based solely on the results of
the paraffin test.
*****************************************************************************************
I Loved the part when Mcadams believed that all Prisoners on the basis of
Pariffin Tests be SET FREE ! ! !
*******************************************************************************************
How about that, folks?
***********************************************************************************
ALL WW II Surplus and "Unreliable"(made before end of WW II)
Only other 6.5 ammo made in 1954 was for the "CIA".
********************************************************************************
COMMERCIAL 6.5 AMMO WAS WW II & "UNRELIABLE".
The resrt of your Bullshit can be addressed when/IF you ever find the Guts
to debate me on radio.
*******************************************************************************************
tomnln
well, he's SURE Right about THAT !
He SURE got Rolled around in the mud.
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:6dciv4p1cm8omair5...@4ax.com...
> On 30 Apr 2009 01:05:14 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I notice that McAdams FORGOT to put our radio debate on his website.
>>
>>You can hear it HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
>
> I don't put vanity stuff on my web site.
>
> And frankly, it wasn't that good a debate -- except for people who
> like mud wrestling and roller derby.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
You could have made it interesting by offering "Citations" to your Dumb
comments'
Maybe you'll get a B-I-G Box-Car FULL of Band-Aids for Father's day???
I sure hope your ego made you tell your students to listen to the debate.
ps;
About the "vanity" remark;
Try a little Make-Up! ! !
David Von Pein
They don't get more retarded than Thomas Rossley when it comes to
evaluating and comprehending evidence and testimony in the JFK case.
Although somebody named "Robcap" comes pretty close.
But Rossley's even got Rob beat by a considerable margin on the "Kook"
scale -- because there's not ONE OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET (that I'm
aware of) who actually thinks John B. Connally was shot in the chest
FROM THE FRONT other than Mega-Kook Rossley.
tomnln
Sure explains why you RUN from official evidence/testimony.
David Von Pein
I rest my case.
tomnln
>
> I rest my case.
Which case are you resting THIS TIME???
Syphilis OR, Gonorrhea???
ps;
Wanna "Pinch-Hit" fer yer Daddy next debate?
aeffects
aeffects
tomnln
Not exactly an "official" source is it John !
Not even "Complete".
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:49fa7022...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 30 Apr 2009 14:07:10 -0400, "Gary Combs" <glcc...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>John McAdams,
>> During this debate you referenced "Flight of Fancy" by Bruce Mills.
>> After
>>trying on Google and other search engines I cannot locate this on the
>>internet. Asking you to provide a link, for this essay, I believed you
>>called it.
>>Thanks for any help with this issue.
>>
>
> Here you go:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fancy2.txt
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm